Pathlock’s Gartner inclusion signals a broader shift in IGA

At a glance

What this is: This is Pathlock’s analysis of Gartner’s 2025 IGA Market Guide inclusion and the market shift it signals toward broader security, business enablement, and compliance outcomes.

Why it matters: For IAM, IGA, and governance teams, the message is that access governance is now expected to support risk reduction and operational efficiency alongside audit readiness.

By the numbers:

• The IGA market worldwide grew 9.2% from 2023 to 2024, according to Gartner research cited by Pathlock.
• Gartner forecasts 10.7% growth from 2024 to 2025 for the IGA market, according to Gartner research cited by Pathlock.

Context

IGA is the governance layer that manages identity lifecycle and access across on-premises and cloud environments. The current market signal is not that organisations need more access reviews in isolation, but that they want governance controls that also support security risk reduction and business execution.

Pathlock’s Gartner inclusion is a useful marker because it sits inside a broader market shift, not a product-specific story. Gartner’s framing shows that compliance remains foundational, but buying criteria are moving toward full-spectrum IGA capability that can support productivity, risk reduction, and audit readiness together.

Key questions

Q: How should organisations measure IGA maturity beyond a simple audit checklist?

A: Measure whether access governance is closed-loop. A mature programme can assign ownership, approve access, recertify entitlements, and remove them without losing evidence. If the process cannot show who approved what, when it was reviewed, and whether removal happened, the maturity score is cosmetic rather than operational.

Q: Why do compliance-led IGA programmes struggle in mature enterprises?

A: Because compliance alone does not capture the operational and security outcomes leaders now expect. Mature enterprises need governance that supports risk reduction, productivity, and audit readiness at the same time. If the programme only proves policy adherence, it can still leave access risk, workflow friction, and hidden entitlement complexity in place.

Q: What breaks when an IGA platform cannot reissue entitlements during role changes?

A: Users can lose access they still need after moving into a new role, which creates operational disruption and forces manual recovery. The larger governance problem is that the platform removes access correctly but fails to restore the new entitlement state. That turns least privilege into a partial control, because continuity matters as much as revocation.

Q: How do access reviews and continuous monitoring work together in IGA?

A: Access reviews validate decisions at a point in time, while continuous monitoring checks whether access remains appropriate between review cycles. Used together, they reduce the gap between approved access and actual exposure. Without monitoring, governance can look current on paper while risk drifts underneath it.

Technical breakdown

Why IGA is moving from compliance control to operating model

IGA historically grew up around audit evidence, recertification, and policy enforcement. Gartner’s market framing shows that this is no longer sufficient on its own, because enterprises now expect the same governance layer to support access risk reduction, business enablement, and operational efficiency. That changes procurement and architecture decisions: teams are not just buying review workflows, they are buying the ability to govern access at scale across hybrid estates. The practical result is that point solutions with narrow compliance scope are increasingly hard to justify in mature programmes.

Practical implication: Treat IGA as a cross-functional control plane, not a compliance utility.

Why fine-grained governance matters in complex application estates

Fine-grained governance means access decisions are made at a more specific level than broad role assignment, often using entitlement detail, segregation of duties rules, and usage context. In complex enterprise environments, that matters because broad roles hide toxic combinations and make certifications less meaningful. Pathlock’s positioning reflects this market need: organisations want identity and access information plus risk and usage signals so that access decisions are based on actual business context, not just directory structure. That is the difference between periodic attestation and meaningful governance.

Practical implication: Use entitlement-level analysis to surface risk that broad roles conceal.

How continuous controls change the governance model

Continuous controls monitoring extends IGA beyond scheduled reviews by checking whether access and SoD conditions remain valid over time. This is important because governance failures usually emerge between review cycles, not at the moment of certification. When usage data, risk signals, and access policy enforcement are linked, teams can detect drift earlier and reduce the gap between approved access and actual exposure. That is especially relevant in hybrid enterprises where multiple applications, control owners, and audit obligations intersect.

Practical implication: Pair reviews with continuous monitoring so drift is detected before the next certification cycle.

NHI Mgmt Group analysis

IGA buying criteria are widening beyond compliance, and that changes how programmes should be judged. Gartner’s market framing shows that security and business enablement are now primary adoption drivers alongside compliance. That means the old question, 'does it satisfy the audit?', is no longer enough for mature enterprises. The decision now is whether the governance layer can also support access risk reduction and measurable productivity gains, which is a different architectural test entirely.

Full-spectrum IGA is becoming the baseline expectation, not an add-on. Gartner’s language about organisations needing multiple outcomes, risk reduction, productivity, and compliance, is a strong signal that narrow, checklist-style governance is losing ground. Programmes that still separate access review, SoD, and operational governance into disconnected workflows will struggle to justify themselves. Practitioners should expect procurement to favour platforms that can connect identity lifecycle, access analytics, and monitoring in one governance model.

Fine-grained identity security is the named concept this market shift makes unavoidable. The article’s substance points to governance that operates at entitlement and usage level, not just at account or role level. That is the only way to make access decisions that serve both compliance and risk management in complex application estates. The implication for identity teams is that coarse governance controls increasingly create blind spots, even when the programme looks mature on paper.

IGA maturity is now measured by decision quality, not review volume. If access reviews produce large volumes of approvals without contextual risk insight, the programme is not delivering the outcomes the market now expects. The shift described here rewards teams that can show lower risk, cleaner access decisions, and fewer manual exceptions. In practice, that means governance leaders need to prove the control changes behaviour, not just that it exists.

Market consolidation pressure is likely to intensify around platforms that connect governance, usage, and risk data. The market guide language suggests enterprises are moving away from niche capabilities and toward more comprehensive coverage. That does not mean every organisation needs a monolith, but it does mean stitching together separate tools will face higher scrutiny. Practitioners should expect more pressure to show how governance signals flow into access decisions, audit readiness, and operational workflows.

From our research library:

• Nearly 60% of IT leaders cite restrictive cost and complexity as a weakness of legacy identity governance, according to the 2025 State of Identity Governance Report.
• Read next: IGA Buyer's Guide

What this signals

Fine-grained identity security: The market signal in this article is that governance decisions are moving closer to entitlements, usage, and risk context rather than broad role abstractions. For practitioners, that means the programme has to produce better access decisions, not just more certification activity.

Enterprises that still treat IGA as a periodic compliance workflow will find it harder to justify the programme as business pressure rises. The stronger model links lifecycle governance, SoD analysis, and continuous monitoring so the control set can support audit readiness and operational speed at the same time.

For practitioners

• Reframe IGA success metrics Measure whether your programme reduces access risk, improves decision quality, and shortens governance cycles, not just whether reviews are completed on time.
• Map governance to business outcomes Tie identity governance outcomes to audit readiness, productivity, and risk reduction so stakeholders can evaluate whether the current model is doing more than checking compliance boxes.
• Increase entitlement-level analysis Review whether SoD and access certification processes operate at the entitlement level, where toxic combinations and misuse are more visible than in coarse role models.
• Add continuous monitoring to periodic reviews Use usage data and control monitoring between certification cycles to catch drift, exceptions, and risky access that scheduled reviews would otherwise miss.

Key takeaways

• The article reflects a clear market shift: IGA is being evaluated for risk reduction and business enablement as much as for compliance.
• Gartner’s cited growth figures show the category is expanding, which raises expectations for broader functionality and more defensible governance outcomes.
• Teams should judge their IGA programme by decision quality, entitlement visibility, and monitoring coverage, not by review volume alone.

Key terms

• Identity Governance and Administration (IGA): A framework of policies, processes, and technology to manage and govern digital identities and their access rights. Increasingly extended to cover non-human identities alongside human users.
• Segregation of Duties: Segregation of Duties is a control principle that prevents one person or role from combining incompatible permissions that could create fraud, error, or undetected change. In ERP environments, it must account for roles, transactions, approvals, and compensating controls across business processes.
• Continuous Controls Monitoring: Continuous controls monitoring is the ongoing evaluation of transactions, access, and configuration changes against policy rules. It replaces occasional sample testing with near-real-time detection, which gives security, audit, and finance teams faster evidence and a better chance to correct drift before it becomes a finding.
• Entitlement: An entitlement is the permission set that defines what a non-human identity can do after it authenticates. It is usually expressed through roles, policies or access assignments, and unmanaged entitlements are a common reason machine identities become over-privileged over time.

Deepen your knowledge

NHI governance, agentic AI identity, and machine identity lifecycle are core topics in our NHI Foundation Level course, the industry's only accredited NHI security programme. If you are building or maturing an IAM programme, it is worth exploring.